The guy who post this had a very interesting point...

"It amazes me how people back then look so much like people now. It feels like there should be more of a difference."

If you think about it, people from ages ago looked very much just like you and me, but it seems like there should be a bigger difference right?

Yah, I saw the guy the other day at Walmart!!!

burning_kittins

Oh yeah i dress like that all the time.

Anyways. Really high quality for being taken that far back :o
Where did this come from?

The picture physically i have no clue, where i saw it would be on Digg

Wow, they had color pics back then?   ;)

Phoenixx45


The guy who post this had a very interesting point...

"It amazes me how people back then look so much like people now. It feels like there should be more of a difference."

If you think about it, people from ages ago looked very much just like you and me, but it seems like there should be a bigger difference right?

No.... Evolution isn't that fast. 10,000 years, yeah maybe some very small differences noticeable by then but not 100 years.

Btw! is that blood spatted all over the door in the top right corner of the pic?

Brad_Hawthorne

Ya, everyone back in 1900 actually looked grainy and black and white IRL. Just think in 2100, people will look back and say that we were all 2 dimentional until holography displays really took off.

Now that will be a treat for my kids kids

bighairycamel

I smell a hoax.  Even though they had color back then they weren't digital camera quality.  And by the off chance they did have the technology, the pic would have to be kept sealed inside an air tight safe to survive 100 years without degradation or fading.

The first part of your post, not necessarily since film cameras are of higher quality than digital cameras since they don't use pixels. The second part makes you wonder what kind of film paper they were using though, if it is indeed real.

I stand corrected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ovich_Prokudin-Gorskii

I am always skeptical of things I see on the internet since 9/10 times they're fake.

Nice picture!

Thanks for the addition SBB! Very cool

Tzar Nicholas II had a photographer go around Russia in 1913 or so and he took color photographs. they should be on the net somewhere. It was really something to see those people from the different parts of Russia at that time.

bighairycamel

I smell a hoax.  Even though they had color back then they weren't digital camera quality.  And by the off chance they did have the technology, the pic would have to be kept sealed inside an air tight safe to survive 100 years without degradation or fading.

I don't see it outside the realm of possibility. Take a 1911 color photo and have it professionally scanned and cleaned in Photoshop CS5. The result is perfectly plausible.
 
This is one downside to digital photography. No matter now crisp it looks it's fixed digital pixels, not a true analog burn in of chemicals to a piece of media. Depending on what process was used and what it was developed onto, it could have very fine detail and what would be considered very high dpi in current terms. Just depends on how fine or grainy the process was that was orignally used.
 
Also realize that not all antique photographic media is celulose film. Some photo methods developed onto metal plates and others used glass as media.

Brad_Hawthorne

bighairycamel

I smell a hoax.  Even though they had color back then they weren't digital camera quality.  And by the off chance they did have the technology, the pic would have to be kept sealed inside an air tight safe to survive 100 years without degradation or fading.

I don't see it outside the realm of possibility. Take a 1911 color photo and have it professionally scanned and cleaned in Photoshop CS5. The result is perfectly plausible.
 
This is one downside to digital photography. No matter now crisp it looks it's fixed digital pixels, not a true analog burn in of chemicals to a piece of media. Depending on what process was used and what it was developed onto, it could have very fine detail and what would be considered very high dpi in current terms. Just depends on how fine or grainy the process was that was orignally used.
 
Also realize that not all antique photographic media is celulose film. Some photo methods developed onto metal plates and others used glass as media.

I didn't say it was impossible, just hard to believe since so many things on the internet are hoaxed, and I'm used to seeing photos from the turn of the century that look like this.  But I always do my research before I say definitively that something is a hoax or real and that's how I came across the wikipedia article.

Anyway, the photo is not exactly 21st century quality after all.  See full-size original.  There is definitely some ghosting between the three negatives used.  Scaling the photo down de-ghosted it so to speak.

Delirious.

Phoenixx45 

"It amazes me how people back then look so much like people now. It feels like there should be more of a difference."

If you think about it, people from ages ago looked very much just like you and me, but it seems like there should be a bigger difference right?

Interesting thing you say that.  I just got back from London. Went to the London tower where I got to see the royal crown jewels and suits of armor.  The suits of armor was so much smaller than I had imagined.  Physically, we have changed in size and height.

That's very cool and interesting

I'd rather have a screwed up environment than the lack of technology and electricity.